No. It says the bonding and earthing shall be adequate.
I know you did. However, a lot of this discussion has arisen from your statement ...No. It says the bonding and earthing shall be adequate.
Was it perhaps I who was mistaken in thinking that you felt the same about earthing arrangements?I have long thought that main bonding was one thing that did not fall under "not retrospective" regulations. Perhaps I was mistaken.
No, not I, I said it (the regualtion) states bonding and earthing shall be adequate.I know you did.
Will it be inadequate after the 18th is introduced?Was it perhaps I who was mistaken in thinking that you felt the same about earthing arrangements?
As always, one can but assume that those who are (we think) introducing it into the regs feel that there is something 'less adequate' about what has hitherto been required. If not, why on earth would they introduce it?Will it be inadequate after the 18th is introduced?
As you know, it doesn't say that. However, nor am I aware of any regulation which says that main bonding must be fitted at the first opportunity when work is done, yet you think that is "not 'non-retrospective".Does the new regulation state an earth rod must be fitted at the first oportunity when work is done? If not when?
As you imply, it will certainly introduce some questions about terminology - if/when these earth rods are connected to the MET of a TN installation, are we going to call the connection an "Earthing Conductor" or a "Bonding Conductor", I wonder?Does the new regulation state that the rod must be fit for sole use as TT including RCDs, If so what resistance must it have? If not, it will just be an extraneous-c-p so back to bonding.
Fair enough - to 'undermine' the installation without the customer's permission would obviously be a bit iffy. However, what about eric's concern/view - if you came across a fault on a circuit which was potentially (or even overtly) dangerous, would you be happy to re-energise that circuit ('leaving the installation as you found it'), if that was what the customer wanted, provided that the problem had been brought to the attention of the customer? If I understand him correctly, I think eric would fear ending up in jail, should anything nasty happen as a result of the defect.At the company I worked for last, we were told we could only isolate faulty parts of the installation with the customer's permission. If we did EICR's, we would document everything thoroughly and explain to the customer about any defects and get a signature, but we would reinstate and leave the installation as we found it.
Again, fair enough, but that's just "B&E". Provided "B&E" were OK, would you undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty?We would not do any installation work (including board changes) without making sure B&E was adequate, but it was OK to carry out maintenance without.
Which "no" - no, you wouldn't change the board or ... yes, you would change the board but, no, you would no re-energise the faulty circuit(s)?This is going to sound odd, but no.
I suppose that come down to EFLI's point about the meaning of "prior" - i.e. finding the fault the day before a planned CU change might be different from finding it on the day of the planned change.However, if I discovered those faulty circuits on an EICR, yes.
Yes, we know that - it's what people think of as being the "non-retrospective" clause.There is a bit in the very beginning of the regs: "The regulations apply to the design, erection and verification of electrical installations, also additions and alterations to existing installations. Existing installations that have been installed in accordance with earlier editions of the Regulations may not comply with this edition in every respect. This does not necessarily mean they are unsafe for continued use or require upgrading."
And the answer was no.Provided "B&E" were OK, would you undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty?
Yes, I understand that, but can't you see that it doesn't tell me what you would do? Your answer says that you would not "undertake a board change and re-energise circuits which you had found to be faulty". However, that doesn't tell me whether you would not change the board, or whether you would change the board but not re-energise the circuits you had found to be faulty - hence my follow up question (the answer to which I still don't know ).This was your question: ... And the answer was no.
So, ideally, would I ...I would want to sort the faults before changing the board. ....
That's fair enough, when possible. As you go on to say ...... But in my previous role as a maintenance spark, I was told to change boards and "make safe" any faulty circuits.
Indeed. As I've been discussing with EFLI, there are some things that cannot really be 'made safe' (without properly remedying them) - like the low IR you mention. A broken CPC somewhere in a radial circuit would be another example. If one could not find and rectify the fault, one would presumably have to at least disconnect some of the sockets.As I have said, sometimes this meant downgrading an OC ring final or leaving a low IR circuit disconnected.
He hasn't - the regulations have.EFLI thinks that may not apply to main bonding (although I'm not sure why he has 'singled out' just that one thing).
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local